[Python-Dev] \code or \constant in tex markup
Which is correct?
$ egrep '(False|True)' Doc/lib/*.tex | grep -c \\constant{
74
$ egrep '(False|True)' Doc/lib/*.tex | grep -c \\code{
204
$ egrep 'None' Doc/lib/*.tex | grep -c \\code{
512
$ egrep 'None' Doc/lib/*.tex | grep -c \\constant{
83
n
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] svn logs
On 08/05/2007 19.37, Neal Norwitz wrote: Part of the problem might be that we are using an old version of svn (1.1) AFAIK. IIRC these operations were sped up in later versions. Yes they were. If that's the case, then probably the server should be updated. -- Giovanni Bajo ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] best practices stdlib: purging xrange
Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Just curious why 2to3 would not replace range() with list(range())? | | In most usages of range(), using the 3.0 range() will work just as | well, and be more efficient. If so, which it would seem from range2x functionally equal to list(range3), then the suggestion of the subject line is backwards. What should be purged eventually is range in for statement headers (or list(range) after conversion). It seems that what some consider best practice now (make a list unless it is long and un-needed) is different from what will be best practice in Py3 (do not make a list unless actually need it). tjr ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Python-Dev] best practices stdlib: purging xrange
* James Y Knight [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-08 11:18:44]: On May 8, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Armin Rigo wrote: On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:14:02AM +1000, Anthony Baxter wrote: I'd like to suggest that we remove all (or nearly all) uses of xrange from the stdlib. A quick scan shows that most of the usage of it is unnecessary. With it going away in 3.0, and it being informally deprecated anyway, it seems like a good thing to go away where possible. I personally think that replacing these with range() is a clean-up, but I also know that not everybody agrees to that. So: should we, or should we not, replace xrange() with range() as a matter of clean-up when the difference between the two is really completely irrelevant? But doesn't doing this now this make the conversion to Py3 *harder*? If 2to3 is going to rewrite xrange() as range(), and range() to list (range()), then moving towards xrange where possible would actually be preferable, wouldn't it? Or is there no plan to run 2to3 on the stdlib? Looking at xrange() and range() definitions and from this discussion, it seems to me that xrange() to be preferable over range(). Its common that most of the code have range() because its simple use in iteration, but if same functionality is provided with xrange as an object. And doing :s/xrange/range/g would make sense also. ( Am I right in understanding this?) Why range or xrange and why not xrange or range? Or is this discussion about why having two functions with similar (or rather same) functionality, and lets move to one and in which case either of them is fine. -- O.R.Senthil Kumaran ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
